Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As before, not disagreeing with you on the whole, tallrick--I also dislike crowds, would prefer less population than we already have, etc., but there's one thing I have to disagree with:There are plenty of wilderness and scarcely populated areas left on the Earth. Many of them are not the easiest places to get to--as should be the case for a wilderness area , and many of them would not be the easiest place to live in year-round, but they exist.
I agree that there is lots of open space on the planet. I've driven extensively over the western part of our country - from the midwest to the plains through the mountains and to the west coast. The open land area of the US is staggerring. That being said, I do believe that population will be a problem some day.
Hillary clinton has talked about actaully giving a bonus of sorts to peole who have cildren in this country because of population loss. Muich of our growth is in immagrants both legal and illegal it seems .
I remember when she uttered those words of nonsense ... and needless to say, I'm glad she didn't receive the Democratic nomination! Of course, we never know what Obama may do either. He's trying hard to be like Billary Clinton ... so he just might consider giving extra "entitlements" to people with children. Liberal Democrats are more likely to go along with those idiotic ideas.
Nobody should receive any kind of "bonus" for a personal decision. If anything, those who DON'T have children should be rewarded with tax breaks and the like. This is because the childless people aren't as much of a burden on society compared to those with lots of children. Those with no kids aren't as reliant on government money for social services like education, health care, etc.
Maybe I haven't spent enough time up north or something, but I don't think we are in some population disaster at all. There is still so much rural land in Florida, and most of the south, until the thought of no one having enough room left is not a concept I worry about. I do think it prudent to quit intellectually bashing our farmers, cattlemen and fishermen. By paying them properly for their goods and giving them the respect they deserve, they can and will continue feeding our country.
Malthus was right.
A population will always grow faster than it's ability to feed itself. (and house, clothe, gainfully employ, educate...etc)
This situation is only exacerbated by technology and the human capacity for suffering and compassion.
We are compassionate and seek to help others, so we support populations that would otherwise have died off. We keep people alive far longer than those people themselves would wish. Humans have (well some of us have) a high capacity for suffering, and a high capacity for adaptation. We learn to survive in some amazingly harsh environments. In order for the population of humans to be reduced to a manageable size (naturally and environmentally manageable) "things" will have to get SO BAD that not even the toughest people can adapt to it....
Indeed at some point the population will grow so large that it will finally succumb to the natural forces trying to bring it back down to size, a size that the environment can support. (room to live, fresh air, drinkable water, arable land, building materials etc)
Since we continually stave off this "disaster" with technology I predict that the fall will be "unnaturally" fast and steep, because the numbers of people living on the planet are unnaturally high. There will be wars, famines, incurable diseases, social dislocations (that cause swift and massive drops in reproduction rates) all of which are natures desperate attempt to 'right size' human populations....
Sad to say, but lots LOTS of PEOPLE (true animals that we ARE) are going to have to go....just like any other animal that failed to survive in the wild.
Erosion is always the greatest on the highest steepest peaks.....
Last edited by Happy Cells; 12-11-2008 at 09:40 AM..
Malthus was right.
A population will always grow faster than it's ability to feed itself. (and house, clothe, gainfully employ, educate...etc)
This situation is only exacerbated by technology and the human capacity for suffering and compassion.
We are compassionate and seek to help others, so we support populations that would otherwise have died off. We keep people alive far longer than those people themselves would wish. Humans have (well some of us have) a high capacity for suffering, and a high capacity for adaptation. We learn to survive in some amazingly harsh environments. In order for the population of humans to be reduced to a manageable size (naturally and environmentally manageable) "things" will have to get SO BAD that not even the toughest people can adapt to it....
Indeed at some point the population will grow so large that it will finally succumb to the natural forces trying to bring it back down to size, a size that the environment can support. (room to live, fresh air, drinkable water, arable land, building materials etc)
Since we continually stave off this "disaster" with technology I predict that the fall will be "unnaturally" fast and steep, because the numbers of people living on the planet are unnaturally high. There will be wars, famines, incurable diseases, social dislocations (that cause swift and massive drops in reproduction rates) all of which are natures desperate attempt to 'right size' human populations....
Sad to say, but lots LOTS of PEOPLE (true animals that we ARE) are going to have to go....just like any other animal that failed to survive in the wild.
Erosion is always the greatest on the highest steepest peaks.....
thats brings up an interesting thought
what do yall think will be the trigger that brings the population to a more reasonable number? what is a reasonable number?
Ok, this is a simple visualization, just to put into perspective just how many people there are on this planet.
let's take the nearly 7 billion people on earth and imagine they were all grouped together in one location.
If all people were grouped together, into standing room only, they would ALL fit into the state of Rhode Island.
Yes, really!
I will show the math:
RI has 1,545 square miles convert that to miles and you have 27,878,400 sq ft. Divide that number by 7 billion and you get just shy of 4 square feet per person to stand in.
The problem isn't overpopulation of the earth (at least not at this point in time), the problem is that the people are concentrated into only certain areas meawhile demanding that that area receive all the resorces nessesary to maintain it's growing population.
I find that most people who think that the world is overpopulated live in these areas with the high concentration where the population is straining the availible resorces for that area.
Los Angelas is a perfect example. The area's resorce of water is in no way able to suport the amount of population that is there. The only way the city survives is by bringing in water from very far away, depleating the resorce wherever they put in their tenticles. I live in such an area that you can see the impact including pictures of the area when L.A. didn't suck the area dry.
The problem is that most people want to live in cities. That's a fact, otherwise the cities wouldn't be so crowded now would they? Yes there are many who say they would like to live away from it all, but most of them do not want to or can't leave the conviniences of the availibilty of jobs, healthcare, entertainment, or the daily social interactions.
Those who want and can, see a much less populated world.
If all people were grouped together, into standing room only, they would ALL fit into the state of Rhode Island.
And how much land would we need to grow enough food to feed all the people?
People not only need land to live on, they much more need land to grow their food. Besidez, packing people all in 1 place is not good for their mental health.
When Indians roamed America they couldn't support more than relatively small bands of people, by hunting and gathering. Today an extremely few number of Americans farm and are capable of producing far more grain and beef than this country needs
Originally Posted by YellowHorse And how much land would we need to grow enough food to feed all the people?
People not only need land to live on, they much more need land to grow their food. Besidez, packing people all in 1 place is not good for their mental health.
It is only a visualization tequnique to give perspective on how many people there actually are on the whole earth. I'm in no way saying we need to pack everyone into a small area, I thought that was clear enough in the fist line of my post.
And Chef Boyardee pretty much answered the other question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, and many of them would not be the easiest place to live in year-round, but they exist.
And how much land would we need to grow enough food to feed all the people?
Besidez, packing people all in 1 place is not good for their mental health.
